Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following
>> > situation. The situation of no choice.

>>
>> 1. No, it doesn't. Your complicity in the "bad"
>> outcome doesn't change.

>
> Then you have to acknowledge forced complicity
> as being way less morally wrong than willful
> complicity.
>
>> 2. There IS a choice.

>
> The only other choice (assuming one
> can't afford to homestead) is death
> from starvation. That can't possibly
> be seen as a viable choice! Surely
> you must agree.


What you have is a morality of convenience.


  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>> Then forced complicity

>>
>>There is no such thing.

>
> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.


That's coercion, not complicity. Complicity implies willingness.


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > The only other choice (assuming one
> > can't afford to homestead) is death
> > from starvation. That can't possibly
> > be seen as a viable choice! Surely
> > you must agree.

>
> What you have is a morality of convenience.


Do you feel life is a convenience?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.



  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following
> > situation. The situation of no choice. The
> > vegan must buy food and there is not enough
> > veganic foods available to provide for a
> > healthy life. That makes no choice buy to
> > buy some commercial foods. It's literally
> > a life or death choice. Responsibility fades
> > away when there's no choice.

>
> You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face.


What are these choices?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.



  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote
>
>> Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>> vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>> production,

>
>If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, and I
>agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in rice
>production.


No. It only links the consumer the death of his rice.
Collateral deaths are contingent to the production
of rice, not antecedent to it.


  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following
>> > situation. The situation of no choice. The
>> > vegan must buy food and there is not enough
>> > veganic foods available to provide for a
>> > healthy life. That makes no choice buy to
>> > buy some commercial foods. It's literally
>> > a life or death choice. Responsibility fades
>> > away when there's no choice.

>>
>> You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face.

>
> What are these choices?

=-====================
I see your supposed claims of extensive research have proven to be false
again, killer. You've been given other choices here, you choose to ignore
those that are too inconvenient or don't fit your selfish wants. In the
end, it's kill the animals, I'll eat want I want, not just what I need.


>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance run amok....
>
>



  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >> You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face.
> >
> > What are these choices?

> =-====================
> I see your supposed claims of extensive research have proven to be

false
> again, killer. You've been given other choices here, you choose to

ignore
> those that are too inconvenient or don't fit your selfish wants. In

the
> end, it's kill the animals, I'll eat want I want, not just what I

need.


So what are my choices? And what are my selfish
wants? What have I ignored for inconvenience?

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face.
>> >
>> > What are these choices?

>> =-====================
>> I see your supposed claims of extensive research have proven to be

> false
>> again, killer. You've been given other choices here, you choose to

> ignore
>> those that are too inconvenient or don't fit your selfish wants. In

> the
>> end, it's kill the animals, I'll eat want I want, not just what I

> need.
>
>
> So what are my choices?

==================
Again, where'd all that reseach you claimed to have done go to? Oh, yeah,
it was yet another ly of yours, wasn't it killer?


And what are my selfish
> wants? What have I ignored for inconvenience?

========================
LOL You haven't ignored 'inconvenience' fool. You obsess about only those
things that are convenient, and provide your selfish wants. You really are
just too stupid...


>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance run amok....
>



  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:55:14 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:40:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza >

wrote:
> >>> Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>No, I didn't. I wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>> His analysis is fair enough, and I don't have a problem
> >>>>> with it as far as it goes. What is curious, however,
> >>>>> is that it also links vegetarians to the collateral
> >>>>> deaths caused by the production of the crops they eat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"It" in the second sentence refers to "his analysis".
> >>
> >> You cannot lie

> >
> >I didn't.

>
> As is usual with you,

As usual with you, I don't tolerate your deliberate lying.

**** off.

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >> again, killer. You've been given other choices here, you choose
to
> > ignore
> >> those that are too inconvenient or don't fit your selfish wants.

In

The above is where you say I ignore those that
are too inconvenient.

> > So what are my choices?

> ==================
> Again, where'd all that reseach you claimed to have done go to? Oh,

yeah,
> it was yet another ly of yours, wasn't it killer?


No answer I notice

> And what are my selfish
> > wants? What have I ignored for inconvenience?

> ========================
> LOL You haven't ignored 'inconvenience' fool. You obsess about only

those
> things that are convenient, and provide your selfish wants. You

really are
> just too stupid...


See the above re inconvenience. No answer,
I notice.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.




  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > The only other choice (assuming one
>> > can't afford to homestead) is death
>> > from starvation. That can't possibly
>> > be seen as a viable choice! Surely
>> > you must agree.

>>
>> What you have is a morality of convenience.

>
> Do you feel life is a convenience?


Life in the city near a supermarket, in your comfy flat, near the job you
know, with cable TV and internet, is a life based on convenience.


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > Moral complicity dissappears in the following
>> > situation. The situation of no choice. The
>> > vegan must buy food and there is not enough
>> > veganic foods available to provide for a
>> > healthy life. That makes no choice buy to
>> > buy some commercial foods. It's literally
>> > a life or death choice. Responsibility fades
>> > away when there's no choice.

>>
>> You have choices, they're just too hard for you to face.

>
> What are these choices?


Stop paying people to produce food for you in ways over which you have no
knowledge or control.


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:36:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>
>>> Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>>> vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>>> production,

>>
>>If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, and
>>I
>>agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
>>rice
>>production.

>
> No. It only links the consumer the death of his rice.
> Collateral deaths are contingent to the production
> of rice, not antecedent to it.


There is no meaningful difference.


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> again, killer. You've been given other choices here, you choose

> to
>> > ignore
>> >> those that are too inconvenient or don't fit your selfish wants.

> In
>
> The above is where you say I ignore those that
> are too inconvenient.

=================
Yes, too bad you can't read for comprehension...


>
>> > So what are my choices?

>> ==================
>> Again, where'd all that reseach you claimed to have done go to? Oh,

> yeah,
>> it was yet another ly of yours, wasn't it killer?

>
> No answer I notice

==================
It's been discussed. You're too lazy, stupid or ignorant to care.


>
>> And what are my selfish
>> > wants? What have I ignored for inconvenience?

>> ========================
>> LOL You haven't ignored 'inconvenience' fool. You obsess about only

> those
>> things that are convenient, and provide your selfish wants. You

> really are
>> just too stupid...

>
> See the above re inconvenience. No answer,
> I notice.

=====================
You didn't ask anything that made sense, fool. Try reading for
comprehension. To "ignore those that are too inconvenient" is not the same
as ignoring the inconveninet fool.

>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance run amok....


>



  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > I presented 2, homesteading and death.
> > > I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
> > > veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
> > > and hiring a farmer are not in most
> > > people's budget, that leaves only death
> > > or buying commercial. Have I left
> > > anything out? (keep in mind that eating
> > > meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)

> >
> > Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two

options
> were
> > eating meat and death? Just curious...

>
> I'd have to break down and eat the meat,
> which I consider unhealthy but healthier
> than starving. That's a last resort to me.
> As long as veg food is available, that's
> what I'll choose. Even when shown low
> deaths meats, which are rare (no pun)
> enough to NOT be able to supply all
> meat eaters, I will still choose a veg
> food. Some veg foods are 0 death,


No vegetarian MEAL you've ever eaten was zero-death.

> but meats always have at least 1.
> Anyway, it's just healthier to not eat
> meat.
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >> What you have is a morality of convenience.
> >
> > Do you feel life is a convenience?

>
> Life in the city near a supermarket, in your comfy flat, near the job

you
> know, with cable TV and internet, is a life based on convenience.


And that's a moral thing to you?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.



  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote
>
> > Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
> > vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
> > production,

>
> If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production, and I
> agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in rice
> production.


Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
fallacy of insignificant cause.
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Derek > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Then forced complicity
> >> >
> >> >There is no such thing.
> >>
> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.

> >
> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

>
> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> person can be forced to comply with brute force
> and coercion if applied firmly enough.


Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
situation. I have choice of enduring your actions, risking a broken arm
and seeing you prosecuted for assault. I have the option of matching
your force to free myself. I have the option of escalating my forcing to
counter act your force. I have the option of calling out for help. I
also have legal options and illegal options to counter your act of
aggression such carrying a knife, gun, pepper spray. I have the option
of disabling you by attacking your kneecap, striking your nose with an
upward thrust, gouging your eyes, or crushing your testicles.

> It is choice
> >that would certainly have a negative or unwanted consequence, but the
> >choice still remains. Unfortunately, our culture allows the individual
> >to get caught up in the "he made me do it" mentality. It is this
> >mentality that allows people to be manipulated. it is a remnant from
> >religion to inspire guilt and control.

  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> Derek > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >
> > >In article >,
> > > Derek > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >

wrote:
> > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Then forced complicity
> > >> >
> > >> >There is no such thing.
> > >>
> > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> > >
> > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

> >
> > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> > person can be forced to comply with brute force
> > and coercion if applied firmly enough.

>
> Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.


No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.

A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel
is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a
choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of
the truth.

You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false
dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have
not identified logical dilemmas at all.

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>I presented 2, homesteading and death.
> >>I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
> >>veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
> >>and hiring a farmer are not in most
> >>people's budget, that leaves only death
> >>or buying commercial. Have I left
> >>anything out? (keep in mind that eating
> >>meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)

> >
> >
> > Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two options were
> > eating meat and death? Just curious...

>
> She'd eat the meat. I think she's already said that.
>
> Homo felcher Ron would just shriek, "False dilemma!
> False dilemma!" and flounce away.


In the real world, such a dilemma does not exist. Therefore it is a
false dilemma. That you continue to compound this with a logical fallacy
of insignificant cause is noted.


  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > C. James Strutz wrote:
> >
> > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > >>I presented 2, homesteading and death.
> > >>I forgot about getting a farmer to grow
> > >>veganic for one or more. Both homesteading
> > >>and hiring a farmer are not in most
> > >>people's budget, that leaves only death
> > >>or buying commercial. Have I left
> > >>anything out? (keep in mind that eating
> > >>meat is not an option, nor is it 0 death)
> > >
> > >
> > > Let me ask you a question: what would you do if the only two

options were
> > > eating meat and death? Just curious...

> >
> > She'd eat the meat. I think she's already said that.
> >
> > Homo felcher Ron would just shriek, "False dilemma!
> > False dilemma!" and flounce away.

>
> In the real world, such a dilemma does not exist. Therefore it is a
> false dilemma.


"False dilemma" does not refer to the fact that the dilemma doesn't
exist in the real world. You are again committing a defintional
fallacy.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Derek > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article >,
> > > > Derek > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >

> wrote:
> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Then forced complicity
> > > >> >
> > > >> >There is no such thing.
> > > >>
> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> > > >
> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> > >
> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force
> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough.

> >
> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

>
> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.
>
> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel
> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a
> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of
> the truth.


The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti --
skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating
earlier.

> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false
> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have
> not identified logical dilemmas at all.

  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Derek > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >In article >,
> > > > > Derek > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza

>
> > wrote:
> > > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Then forced complicity
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >There is no such thing.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> > > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> > > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> > > > >
> > > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> > > >
> > > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> > > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> > > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> > > > person can be forced to comply with brute force
> > > > and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> > >
> > > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

> >
> > No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.
> >
> > A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you

feel
> > is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma

is a
> > choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive

of
> > the truth.

>
> The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti


Irrelevant. This is not about what you might *do*.

You STILL are misusing the word dilemma. The food choice isn't a
dilemma at all, it's just a food choice.

  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> >> What you have is a morality of convenience.
>> >
>> > Do you feel life is a convenience?

>>
>> Life in the city near a supermarket, in your comfy flat, near the job

> you
>> know, with cable TV and internet, is a life based on convenience.

>
> And that's a moral thing to you?


It's moral to me because I do not view killing of animals for my personal
convenience as immoral.

People who claim otherwise yet live a life of convenience anyway are
hypocrites.


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Derek" > wrote
>>
>> > Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>> > vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>> > production,

>>
>> If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production,
>> and I
>> agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
>> rice
>> production.

>
> Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
> fallacy of insignificant cause.


This is not an example of insignificant cause.

The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer.

"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory government
because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other
vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause."
See the following link.. http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php




  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Derek > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Derek > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Then forced complicity
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no such thing.
>> >>
>> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>> >
>> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.

>>
>> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
>> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
>> person can be forced to comply with brute force
>> and coercion if applied firmly enough.

>
> Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
>
> I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
> situation.


You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
under extreme duress does not form complicity.

[..]


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>> Ron wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Derek > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >In article >,
>> > > > Derek > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >

>> wrote:
>> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >> Then forced complicity
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >There is no such thing.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>> > > >
>> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
>> > >
>> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
>> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
>> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force
>> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough.
>> >
>> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.

>>
>> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.
>>
>> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel
>> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a
>> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of
>> the truth.

>
> The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti --
> skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating
> earlier.


And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.

>> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false
>> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have
>> not identified logical dilemmas at all.



  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Derek" > wrote
> >>
> >> > Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
> >> > vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
> >> > production,
> >>
> >> If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production,
> >> and I
> >> agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
> >> rice
> >> production.

> >
> > Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
> > fallacy of insignificant cause.

>
> This is not an example of insignificant cause.
>
> The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer.
>
> "Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory government
> because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other
> vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause."
> See the following link.. http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php


What a powerful feeling that must be. An eating disordered person is
likely to overestimate their impact in the world and to create
situations where this would be viewed this way.

The example is a case of insignificant cause. Is the cause of the defeat
of the tory because the person voted reform, or because many voted
reform, liberal and chose not to vote at all. Placing one's self at the
centre of the universe is a frequent occurence for those who need to
feel special, important, powerful, in control, etc.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Derek > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > Derek > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Then forced complicity
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is no such thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> >> >
> >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >>
> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> >> person can be forced to comply with brute force
> >> and coercion if applied firmly enough.

> >
> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> >
> > I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
> > situation.

>
> You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
> under extreme duress does not form complicity.


Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> >> Ron wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Derek > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >In article >,
> >> > > > Derek > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >There is no such thing.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >> > >
> >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force
> >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> >> >
> >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> >>
> >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.
> >>
> >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that you feel
> >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A dilemma is a
> >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be exhaustive of
> >> the truth.

> >
> > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti --
> > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and eating
> > earlier.

>
> And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.
>
> >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of "false
> >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you have
> >> not identified logical dilemmas at all.


Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.

Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are
different

I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices)
I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices)
I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices)

Contrary to the example of the chocolate cake where -- not choosing
chocolate cake would make one an idiot, bush's comments don't presume
anything other than what is stated.

Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you are....


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"

>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article

.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ron wrote:
> > >> > In article >,
> > >> > Derek > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron >

wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >In article >,
> > >> > > > Derek > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza

>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >There is no such thing.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> > >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> > >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> > >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> > >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> > >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force
> > >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> > >> >
> > >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> > >>
> > >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.
> > >>
> > >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that

you feel
> > >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A

dilemma is a
> > >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be

exhaustive of
> > >> the truth.
> > >
> > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti

--
> > > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and

eating
> > > earlier.

> >
> > And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.
> >
> > >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of

"false
> > >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you

have
> > >> not identified logical dilemmas at all.

>
> Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.


No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by
persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong to
keep insisting that it is.

>
> Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are
> different
>
> I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices)
> I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices)
> I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices)

They are all the same: NOT dilemmas.

  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >, "Dutch"

> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article

> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Ron wrote:
> > > >> > In article >,
> > > >> > Derek > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron >

> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >In article >,
> > > >> > > > Derek > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza

> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> >There is no such thing.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> > > >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> > > >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> > > >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> > > >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> > > >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force
> > > >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> > > >>
> > > >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.
> > > >>
> > > >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice that

> you feel
> > > >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A

> dilemma is a
> > > >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be

> exhaustive of
> > > >> the truth.
> > > >
> > > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or spaghetti

> --
> > > > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and

> eating
> > > > earlier.
> > >
> > > And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or choice.
> > >
> > > >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of

> "false
> > > >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because you

> have
> > > >> not identified logical dilemmas at all.

> >
> > Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.

>
> No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by
> persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong to
> keep insisting that it is.


Limiting choices always creates a dilemma.

> > Please illustrate in any meaningful way how the three examples are
> > different
> >
> > I can choose chocolate cake or rice pudding (You limit my choices)
> > I can choose to be with you or against you (bush limits my choices)
> > I can choose chili or spaghetti (rudy limits my choices)

> They are all the same: NOT dilemmas.

  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article >, "Dutch"

> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article

> > .com>,
> > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Ron wrote:
> > > > >> > In article >,
> > > > >> > Derek > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron >

> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > >In article

>,
> > > > >> > > > Derek > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza

> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >There is no such thing.
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> > > > >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> > > > >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a

choice.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> > > > >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> > > > >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> > > > >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force
> > > > >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice

that
> > you feel
> > > > >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A

> > dilemma is a
> > > > >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be

> > exhaustive of
> > > > >> the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or

spaghetti
> > --
> > > > > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and

> > eating
> > > > > earlier.
> > > >
> > > > And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or

choice.
> > > >
> > > > >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of

> > "false
> > > > >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because

you
> > have
> > > > >> not identified logical dilemmas at all.
> > >
> > > Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.

> >
> > No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by
> > persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong

to
> > keep insisting that it is.

>
> Limiting choices always creates a dilemma.

No, Ron. That is a misuse of the word dilemma.

  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"

>
> wrote:
>
> The example is a case of insignificant cause.


No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.

You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
running your mouth about it.

  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article >, "Dutch"
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article
> > > .com>,
> > > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Ron wrote:
> > > > > >> > In article >,
> > > > > >> > Derek > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > >In article

> >,
> > > > > >> > > > Derek > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> Then forced complicity
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >There is no such thing.
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> > > > > >> > > >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> > > > > >> > > >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a

> choice.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> > > > > >> > > a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> > > > > >> > > comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> > > > > >> > > person can be forced to comply with brute force
> > > > > >> > > and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> No, not a fallacy; not a dilemma at all.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> A dilemma is NOT simply an unpleasant choice, or a choice

> that
> > > you feel
> > > > > >> is unfairly constrained to a limited number of options. A
> > > dilemma is a
> > > > > >> choice between two PROPOSITIONS that are purported to be
> > > exhaustive of
> > > > > >> the truth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The truth is that there are more options than chili or

> spaghetti
> > > --
> > > > > > skipping the meat and eating later, or skipping the meal and
> > > eating
> > > > > > earlier.
> > > > >
> > > > > And many others, but there is no dilemma, just an either/or

> choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> You continually misidentify dilemmas, and all your claims of
> > > "false
> > > > > >> dilemma", every single one so far, have been wrong, because

> you
> > > have
> > > > > >> not identified logical dilemmas at all.
> > > >
> > > > Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.
> > >
> > > No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by
> > > persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong

> to
> > > keep insisting that it is.

> >
> > Limiting choices always creates a dilemma.

> No, Ron. That is a misuse of the word dilemma.


Please explain a dilemma.


  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> > In article >, "Dutch"

> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > The example is a case of insignificant cause.

>
> No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
> one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>
> You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> running your mouth about it.


In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.
  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote:

> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote:
>>
>>>In article .com>,
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron AGAIN chose against adult engagement and wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dutch, you only look more foolish by persisting.
>>>>
>>>>No, Ron - that would be you who demonstrates your foolishness by
>>>>persisting. A choice is not inherently a dilemma. You are wrong
>>>>to keep insisting that it is.
>>>
>>>Limiting choices always creates a dilemma.

>>
>>No, Ron. That is a misuse of the word dilemma.

>
>
> Please explain a dilemma.


I already did in the thread, and you've responded after
it. Dutch repeated it, and you responded to that as
well. Look it up yourself.

You're misusing the word. You plainly don't know what
it is.
  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
>>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch"

>>
>
>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.

>>
>>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
>>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
>>
>>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
>>running your mouth about it.

>
>
> In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
> vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.


Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
decisive and significant.

Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
clever, when you so plainly aren't?
  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>dogmatically wrong Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >, "Dutch"
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>The example is a case of insignificant cause.
> >>
> >>No, it is not. Once again, you are badly mistaken on terminology. The
> >>one person's vote may not be decisive, but it is significant.
> >>
> >>You really ought to know something about a topic before you begin
> >>running your mouth about it.

> >
> >
> > In a city population of 3 million my vote is as significant as any other
> > vote. Unless the voting is one vote apart and I cast the deciding vote,
> > my cause in the situation is the same as anyone else's.

>
> Right. I covered that, twit, in my distinction between
> decisive and significant.


It is not significant. That is your error. It is one of many, many votes.

> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're
> clever, when you so plainly aren't?


I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you
attach to it is your issue.
  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Derek" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > Ipse dixit and false. Show where Matheny's article links
>> >> > vegetarianism to the collateral deaths associated in crop
>> >> > production,
>> >>
>> >> If consuming meat links the consumer to the deaths in meat production,
>> >> and I
>> >> agree it does, then consuming rice links the consumer to the deaths in
>> >> rice
>> >> production.
>> >
>> > Links, or creating causal relationships is also known as the logical
>> > fallacy of insignificant cause.

>>
>> This is not an example of insignificant cause.
>>
>> The following example is quite parallel to the case of the rice consumer.
>>
>> "Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped defeat the Tory
>> government
>> because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other
>> vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause."
>> See the following link..
>> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php

>
> What a powerful feeling that must be. An eating disordered person is
> likely to overestimate their impact in the world and to create
> situations where this would be viewed this way.
>
> The example is a case of insignificant cause. Is the cause of the defeat
> of the tory because the person voted reform, or because many voted
> reform, liberal and chose not to vote at all. Placing one's self at the
> centre of the universe is a frequent occurence for those who need to
> feel special, important, powerful, in control, etc.


Your ranting is becoming increasing incoherent. One does not have to be at
the centre of the universe to be responsible. If you voted Tory and they got
in, you were responsible, as responsible as everyone else who voted Tory.
The alternative is NOBODY was responsible, and that makes no sense.

You can have your own personal reality if you want, knock yourself out.

Likewise, the man who eats a burger is responsible for the death of the
steer.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder usual suspect Vegan 0 14-08-2005 02:37 PM
Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water Jay Santos Vegan 0 31-12-2004 06:36 AM
dreck nash is a crybaby liar usual suspect Vegan 6 23-05-2004 07:16 PM
Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 Jonathan Ball Vegan 1 11-05-2004 08:30 AM
Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context Jonathan Ball Vegan 31 03-11-2003 08:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"